Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Politics

President Obama Orders Review of Cyber Attacks On 2016 Election (reuters.com) 557

President Barack Obama has ordered a full review of hacking activities aimed at disrupting last month's presidential election, media outlets reported Friday citing a top White House official. The results are to be delivered to Obama before he leaves the office. From a report on Reuters: "The president has directed the intelligence community to conduct a full review of what happened during the 2016 election process ... and to capture lessons learned from that and to report to a range of stakeholders, to include the Congress," homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco said during an event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

President Obama Orders Review of Cyber Attacks On 2016 Election

Comments Filter:
  • by Kunedog ( 1033226 ) on Friday December 09, 2016 @12:23PM (#53453087)
    Hillary lost because of real news about how she was a terrible candidate, not because of fake news or hate speech or the Russians or any other conspiracy theory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by elrous0 ( 869638 )

      Democrats still can't accept that there are apparently a bunch of states located between California and New England where people don't buy into the idea that all white people are evil racists and that 3-year-olds should be able to create their own genders. They just assumed that all that land that they only see from their plane windows must be empty or something.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Republicans don't like to be all lumped into the pile of anti-science Bible thumpers and we Dems don't like to be lumped in with those nutty people who interview a 9 year-old about her "transgender" choices like she was an adult.

        I love my NPR (I know! Surprising!) but when I heard the interview a couple of weeks ago with this THIRD grader about her/his gender issues, I wanted call in and yell, "Get a fucking grip! She's 9 years old and we called them Tomboys when I was a kid!"

        Oh, don't get me started. Thi

      • by skam240 ( 789197 )

        What a world you live in.

        I'm sure if you try hard enough you can find other things fringe democrats have brought up and then you can pretend that applies to everybody too.

        By applying dumb stereotypes to all Democrats you're no better than someone applying dumb stereotypes to all Red Staters.

    • by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Friday December 09, 2016 @01:34PM (#53453725)

      Hillary lost because of real news about how she was a terrible candidate, not because of fake news or hate speech or the Russians or any other conspiracy theory.

      The other day, Jordan Klepper (The Daily Show) interviewed a Trump supporter about Trump picking insiders and banking executives for the various Cabinet and agency positions (with regard to his promise to "drain the swamp") and the guy being interviewed said, (paraphrasing) "Well, you want the best qualified people for the jobs, even if they have questionable things in their past." Jordan replied, "I think that was Hillary Clinton's entire platform."

      Hillary might not have been a great candidate or universally likable, but don't pretend that there wasn't (and isn't) any fake news and/or hate speech about her being circulated by conservatives and Republicans or that those things didn't have any affect on people's opinions and election decisions.

  • The public (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 09, 2016 @12:23PM (#53453089)

    I wonder if the voting public are considered stakeholders.

  • by Archtech ( 159117 ) on Friday December 09, 2016 @12:27PM (#53453115)

    "The results are to be delivered to Obama before he leaves the [sic] office".

    Why? It would make better sense if the results were turned over to Mr Trump, who will be in a position to learn from them and take any appropriate action.

    • Obama runs his mouth or takes pointless actions such as these do give appearance of "doing something."

      He's mostly a disappointment, thought he'd accomplish certain things but instead gives us Republican healthcare plan that further fluffs up big insurance and big pharmy and big healthcare chain, fraud and scam energy company support, making Bush/Cheney wiretaps and violation of privacy even worse....disgusting.

    • Re:Abuse of power? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Godai ( 104143 ) * on Friday December 09, 2016 @12:34PM (#53453165)

      If the results are going to other people ("a range of stakeholders", which includes Congress) the information is there for Trump if he wants it. By having it delivered to him before he leaves office, that puts a timetable on it. Otherwise it's "Hey, go do this thing for me. Also, I'm out of here", which in my experience results in nothing happening.

    • Re:Abuse of power? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by chispito ( 1870390 ) on Friday December 09, 2016 @01:05PM (#53453453)

      "The results are to be delivered to Obama before he leaves the [sic] office".

      Why? It would make better sense if the results were turned over to Mr Trump, who will be in a position to learn from them and take any appropriate action.

      Publicly, at least, Trump is denying Russian involvement, facts be damned [time.com]. I am going to give the current President the benefit of the doubt and say he's doing it to help persuade Donald Trump that it's something he needs to take seriously.

      I don't think it's a ploy to score political points because there are none to score.

      • ...he's doing it to help persuade Donald Trump that it's something he needs to take seriously.

        We can add that to the list of things Trump needs to take seriously. He said (tweeted) the Electoral College is a "disaster" and, for months, said the election was "rigged", but that's apparently all okay now because he won. The man can't keep even the things he's said straight and seriously.

    • by skids ( 119237 )

      So he can decide what to declassify.

  • by nimbius ( 983462 ) on Friday December 09, 2016 @12:35PM (#53453183) Homepage
    If you or any other politician cared about the potential for hacking, it would have started 16 years ago when bush won the vote based on hanging chad and an ominous declaration from evoting vendor Diebold.

    the reason the 2016 vote was so unexpected is simple. Democrats ran a turd for a candidate with no policy other than 'i want to be a president.' Hillary ignored midwestern and rural voters at her peril, and in return they ignored her. Sure, benghazi wasnt her fault but one could scholastically argue that the benghazi trials werent about implicating her in a scandal but making sure the public understood she was willing to throw anyone and everyone under the bus during hearings. hillary rigged her own primary and in doing so significantly disenfranchised a number of Sanders voters, but republicans masterfully highlighted sanders curious inability to win delegates as evidence that Hillary was being rammed down constituents throats whether they enjoyed the candidate or not. She was implicated, and controversially exonerated, from a federal investigation into her handling of states secrets that despite her teams best efforts to spin, seemed hypocritical when compared to manning or snowden. Prosecutors even acquiesced that the reluctance to indict her on any charges would pose a nontrivial barrier in litigating future instances of such cases. hillary banked on Obamas strategy of youth votes while arrogantly assuming youth votes just meant do the harlem shake and mannequin challenge until people cast their fucking ballot.

    but no, she lost because of a combination of fake news, 4chan meme magic and the infamous russian hackers. Keep it up DNC, because in 8 years if you havent figured out that running moderate republican plutocrats as "liberal" candidates doesnt work, im not sure Biden has much of a fucking chance...and god knows you're not about to let an underdog challenge the next "its time for me to win the presidency because i said so" candidate.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by skam240 ( 789197 )

      I agree with a lot of what you say but how would Hillary "rig her own primary"? People voted, she won the vote.

      Just because she was favored by her party (a political party favoring a candidate!? *gasp!*) doesnt mean the election was rigged.

    • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Friday December 09, 2016 @03:13PM (#53454747)
      so no, no chance there. He's pushing 80 for God's sake.

      And you're forgetting how many 'Blue Dog' and social liberals there are. The Republicans have a much stronger position because they have two basic issues: Low taxes and no regulation for the wealthy and right wing evangelicalism for the bible thumpers (with all the guns, none of the Gays or Abortions). It's real easy to keep those groups together.

      Dems have to balance our economic regressive/social liberals with socialists, environmentalists and civil rights activists. We're a much, much looser coalition. That's why Hilary couldn't get the vote out. She was walking too fine a line and tripped over it.

      The sad thing is things are probably going to have to go to shit for 80% of the population before we start seeing progress again. It's been like this since I was a kid. Republicans deregulation and wreck the economy, Dems move in and fix it up, folks get complacent and want the Republicans back because instead of slow steady growth they promise the world. Lather, rinse, repeat. Savings and Loan, .com bust, housing bust. Over and over and over again.
  • I wonder if the review will include the GA Election system [cnbc.com] that the DHS did an intrusion test on even after the GA Election office stated the did not require their assistance?
  • by bjdevil66 ( 583941 ) on Friday December 09, 2016 @12:42PM (#53453257)
    This isn't a Jill Stein or Hillary fanatic's fantasy scenario, where some "evil player" will be uncovered and the results could be overturned or changes.

    This is just an honest review of what MAY have happened as a result of bad players trying to fiddle with the election. This is a really good idea to help ensure future presidential elections being trustworthy and valid.
    • I've already commented so cannot mod you up. I feel like a whole crop of nutters followed this story onto the front page. I did not want Clinton to win, but I also do not want other countries meddling in our elections.
    • by skids ( 119237 )

      This is a really good idea to help ensure future presidential elections being trustworthy and valid.

      And so are the recounts. They've already proven Michigan has a lot of work to do to beef up the security/integrity of their ballot system... regardless of who benefits, which will be nobody. Like using seals properly and not using easily or already ripped ballot bags to preserve the paper record.

      Recounts of a certain number of precincts at random should be mandatory, and if those recounts show problems, the recount should be expanded automatically, by law. If your state elections division does not do thi

  • And GATT didn't help. People remember that. Trump is capitalizing on that sentiment. Clinton was offering the modern equivalent of applying more leeches to bleed out an illness.
  • Fix the system (Score:2, Insightful)

    by bigwheel ( 2238516 )

    Bickering aside about who did the cheating, can we all just agree on two things?
    1: Shitcan the electronic voting machines and stick with something that's verifiable. Perhaps, the paper ballets that we've already been using for a long time.
    2: Require a verifiable ID to vote. At least, something as good as what is required to buy a beer.

    If not, then can we point our fingers at the people who object to the above?

  • To quote... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bodhammer ( 559311 ) on Friday December 09, 2016 @02:22PM (#53454183)
    'What Difference, At This Point, Does It Make?'
  • by portwojc ( 201398 ) on Friday December 09, 2016 @02:32PM (#53454291) Homepage

    The major stakeholder in this process, which is the American voter, is the one who should receive a full report. Not just the government officials.

  • I RTFA and didn't catch whether this supposed review is going to include a formal forensics analysis of voting machines, at least in swing states where something of this nature would have been beneficial and anomalies in exit polls vs. actual numbers on machines happened. There were states that flat out denied Stein's request of forensics on the machines, which I think is completely ridiculous. If you're gonna punch the same commands into possibly pwned machines, of COURSE you're gonna get the same numbers (both on memory card and internal "redundant" memory). That is *not* a "recount".

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -- Albert Einstein

Working...